Court Clarifies that Absence of Written Tenancy Agreement Does Not Exclude Rent Authority's Jurisdiction; Disputed Landlord-Tenant Relationship and Title Issues Fall Outside Rent Authority's Domain
In a significant judgment delivered on August 20, 2026, the Allahabad High Court in a batch of revisions consolidated under S.C.C. Revision Nos. 171, 172, 173, and 78 of 2025, clarified the interplay between the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter "the Act of 2021") and the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly the Court of Small Causes, in tenancy disputes involving eviction and recovery of rent.
The case arose from four suits filed by Satya Narain Singh and another seeking eviction and arrears of rent from different defendants, who contested the maintainability of the suits before the Court of Small Causes. The defendants contended that the suits fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority established under the Act of 2021, as the plaintiffs' notices and claims invoked provisions of the said Act, including Sections 4, 8, and 9, and thus the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction. They argued that the absence of a written tenancy agreement mandated that disputes be adjudicated by the Rent Authority and not by civil courts.
The plaintiffs, however, argued that no written tenancy agreement existed, which precluded the Rent Authority from assuming jurisdiction, and maintained that the suits disclosed a cause of action and were properly instituted before the Small Causes Court. They further submitted that disputed questions of fact, such as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship and title issues, could not be decided at the stage of preliminary objections under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions of the Act of 2021, particularly Section 38, which bars Civil Court jurisdiction "in so far as it relates to the provisions of this Act," but excludes questions of title or ownership from the Rent Authority's jurisdiction. The Court also examined the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Act, which contemplates the formalisation of pre-existing oral or unwritten tenancies and prescribes a mechanism for furnishing particulars to the Rent Authority, including consequences for failure to comply.
Drawing upon a precedent from the same High Court in Akhilesh Kumar v. Sanjay Sahgal (2026 (7) ADJ 20), the Court held that the absence of a written tenancy agreement does not, by itself, exclude the operation of the Act of 2021 or the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority. The statutory framework is regulatory and aims to formalise tenancies, not to extinguish pre-existing oral tenancies.
Crucially, the Court distinguished between two separate issues:
1. The absence of a written tenancy agreement - which does not oust Rent Authority jurisdiction if the landlord-tenant relationship is otherwise admitted or established.
2. The dispute over the very existence of a landlord-tenant relationship or issues of title and ownership - which are expressly excluded from the Rent Authority's jurisdiction under Section 38(2) and must be adjudicated by civil courts.
The Court found that since the defendants disputed the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and raised title and ownership claims, these issues could not be conclusively decided in a preliminary application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the jurisdictional bar under Section 38(1) of the Act of 2021 could not be invoked to reject the plaints at the threshold.
Further, the Court held that the plaints disclosed a valid cause of action by pleading the landlord-tenant relationship, default in rent payment, issuance of notices, and failure to comply, entitling the plaintiffs to seek eviction and arrears. The rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11(a) for non-disclosure of cause of action was thus not justified.
The judgment emphasized that the statutory bar under Section 38(1) of the Act of 2021 must be applied with reference to the actual jurisdiction conferred upon the Rent Authority and not in a manner that creates a jurisdictional vacuum where disputes involve title or ownership questions. It also clarified that invocation of the Act's provisions in notices or pleadings by itself does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the defendants and upheld the maintainability of the suits before the Court of Small Causes. The disputes would proceed on merits in the appropriate forum without jurisdictional impediments arising solely from the absence of a written tenancy agreement or invocation of the Act of 2021.
This ruling provides clarity on the procedural and substantive aspects of tenancy disputes under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. It safeguards the rights of landlords to seek remedies in civil courts where tenancy relationships or ownership are disputed, while also affirming the Rent Authority's jurisdiction in cases governed by the Act, even if the tenancy is unwritten.
Bottom Line:
U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Absence of written tenancy agreement does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority where the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted or otherwise established.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 Sections 4, 8, 9, 38; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 11(a), 11(d), Section 151; Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Section 25
Siraj Ahmad v. Satya Narain Singh, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2965663
